Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NEWS -- 2013.03.14.Thursday -- Pi Day

Expand Messages
  • James Martin
    Pi Day 3.14 Thursday 14 March 2013 Albert Einstein s birthday http://www.piday.org/ http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/world/pi-day ... 1) Shane Koyczan: To
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Pi Day 3.14
      Thursday 14 March 2013
      Albert Einstein's birthday
      http://www.piday.org/
      http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/world/pi-day


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      1) Shane Koyczan: "To This Day" ... for the bullied and beautiful
      2) The New Propaganda Is Liberal -- The New Slavery Is Digital

      3) Listen: Bradley Manning's Leaked Court Statement
      4) Can Civilization Survive Capitalism? -- Noam Chomsky
      5) Pope Francis
      6) U.S.A. -- The 10 Worst Places to Retire



      1)
      TED -- ideas worth spreading
      http://www.ted.com/talks/shane_koyczan_to_this_day_for_the_bullied_and_beautiful.html
      Shane Koyczan: "To This Day" ... for the bullied and beautiful


      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      2)
      The New Propaganda Is Liberal -- The New Slavery Is Digital


      By John Pilger
      Today's "message" of grotesque inequality, social injustice and war is the propaganda of liberal democracies. By any measure of human behavior, this is extremism.
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34289.htm


      March 13, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her Triumph of the Will cast Hitler's spell.

      She told me that the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above," but on the "submissive void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone," she said.

      Today, we prefer to believe that there is no submissive void. "Choice" is ubiquitous. Phones are "platforms" that launch every half-thought. There is Google from outer space if you need it. Caressed like rosary beads, the precious devices are borne heads-down, relentlessly monitored and prioritized.

      Their dominant theme is the self. Me. My needs. Riefenstahl's submissive void is today's digital slavery. Edward Said described this wired state in Culture and Imperialism as taking imperialism where navies could never reach. It is the ultimate means of social control because it is voluntary, addictive and shrouded in illusions of personal freedom.

      Today's "message" of grotesque inequality, social injustice and war is the propaganda of liberal democracies. By any measure of human behavior, this is extremism. When Hugo Chavez challenged it, he was abused in bad faith; and his successor will be subverted by the same zealots of the American Enterprise Institute, Harvard's Kennedy School and the "human rights" organizations that have appropriated American liberalism and underpin its propaganda.

      The historian Norman Pollack calls this "liberal fascism." He wrote, "All is normality on display. For [Nazi] goose-steppers, substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarization of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work [in the White House], planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."

      Whereas a generation ago, dissent and biting satire were allowed in the "mainstream," today their counterfeits are acceptable and a fake moral zeitgeist rules. "Identity" is all, mutating feminism and declaring class obsolete.

      Just as collateral damage covers for mass murder, "austerity" has become an acceptable lie. Beneath the veneer of consumerism, a quarter of Greater Manchester is reported to be living in "extreme poverty." The militarist violence perpetrated against hundreds of thousands of nameless men, women and children by "our" governments is never a crime against humanity.

      Interviewing Tony Blair 10 years on from his criminal invasion of Iraq, the BBC's Kirsty Wark gifted him a moment he could only dream of. She allowed Blair to agonize over his "difficult" decision rather than call him to account for the monumental lies and bloodbath he launched. One is reminded of Albert Speer.

      Hollywood has returned to its cold war role, led by liberals. Ben Affleck's Oscar-winning Argo is the first feature film so integrated into the propaganda system that its subliminal warning of Iran's "threat" is offered as Obama is preparing, yet again, to attack Iran.

      That Affleck's "true story" of good-guys-vs- bad-Muslims is as much a fabrication as Obama's justification for his war plans is lost in PR-managed plaudits. As the independent critic Andrew O'Hehir points out, Argo is "a propaganda movie in the truest sense, one that claims to be innocent of all ideology." That is, it debases the art of film-making to reflect an image of the power it serves.

      The true story is that, for 34 years, the US foreign policy elite have seethed with revenge for the loss of the shah of Iran, their beloved tyrant, and his CIA-designed state of torture. When Iranian students occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, they found a trove of incriminating documents, which revealed that an Israeli spy network was operating inside the US, stealing top scientific and military secrets. Today, the duplicitous Zionist ally -- not Iran -- is the one and only nuclear threat in the Middle East.

      In 1977, Carl Bernstein, famed for his Watergate reporting, disclosed that more than 400 journalists and executives of mostly liberal US media organizations had worked for the CIA in the past 25 years. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time, and the big TV broadcasters. These days, such a formal nefarious workforce is quite unnecessary.

      In 2010, the New York Times made no secret of its collusion with the White House in censoring the WikiLeaks war logs. The CIA has an "entertainment industry liaison office" that helps producers and directors remake its image from that of a lawless gang that assassinates, overthrows governments and runs drugs. As Obama's CIA commits multiple murder by drone, Affleck lauds the "clandestine service ... that is making sacrifices on behalf of Americans every day ... I want to thank them very much."

      The 2010 Oscar-winner Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty , a torture-apology, was all but licensed by the Pentagon. The US market share of cinema box-office takings in Britain often reaches 80 percent, and the small UK share is mainly for US co-productions.

      Films from Europe and the rest of the world account for a tiny fraction of those we are allowed to see. In my own film-making career, I have never known a time when dissenting voices in the visual arts are so few and silent. For all the hand-wringing induced by the Leveson inquiry, the "Murdoch mold" remains intact. Phone-hacking was always a distraction, a misdemeanor compared to the media-wide drumbeat for criminal wars.

      According to Gallup, 99 percent of Americans believe Iran is a threat to them, just as the majority believed Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. "Propaganda always wins," said Leni Riefenstahl, "if you allow it."

      www.johnpilger.com

      ----------

      Lots of comments at the URL.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      3)
      http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/listen_bradley_mannings_leaked_court_statement_20130312/
      Listen: Bradley Manning's Leaked Court Statement
      Posted on Mar 12, 2013
      We've known for a while what Pfc. Bradley Manning looks like, but thanks to the Freedom of the Press Foundation we also now know what he sounds like.

      The organization violated court rules when late Monday it released the full audio of Manning's hourlong statement before a military court in Fort Meade, Md., marking the first time since his arrest in May 2010 that the American public has heard him speak.

      Freedom of the Press Foundation:

      Freedom of the Press Foundation is dedicated to supporting journalism that combats overreaching government secrecy. We have been disturbed that Manning's pre-trial hearings have been hampered by the kind of extreme government secrecy that his releases to WikiLeaks were intended to protest.

      ...The information provided by Manning has uncovered stories of wrongdoing by the United States, as well as by leaders and politicians around the world. The cables were reportedly one of the catalysts that led to the Arab Spring and sped up the end of the Iraq War. To this day, more than two years after their release, the information provided by Manning is used every day by journalists and historians in major publications are the world to enlighten and inform the public, both in the United States and around the world. In a time when the extent and reach of U.S. government secrecy is unprecedented, and there are credible reports that the government has abused its secrecy and classification systems to cover up numerous illegal and unconstitutional activities, Manning's actions should be seen as an overdue sliver of sunlight into an overly secret system rather than as a basis for a prosecution seeking decades of imprisonment.

      By releasing this audio recording, we wish to make sure that the voice of this generation's most prolific whistleblower can be heard-literally-by the world.

      --- click on URL to listen to Manning's statement, scroll down to the listen bar ---

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      4)
      http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/16453-focus-can-civilization-survive-capitalism
      Can Civilization Survive Capitalism?
      By Noam Chomsky, www.CounterCurrents.org

      13 March 13

      There is "capitalism" and then there is "really existing capitalism."

      The term "capitalism" is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the "too-big-to-fail" government insurance policy for banks.

      The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book Digital Disconnect.

      "Capitalism" is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support - both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz.

      Some might even use the term "capitalism" to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America's leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

      Dewey called for workers to be "masters of their own industrial fate" and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain "the shadow cast on society by big business."

      The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority "down below" has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will.

      There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy - RECD for short - the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible.

      It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive RECD and the sharply attenuated democracy that goes along with it. But could functioning democracy make a difference?

      Let's keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

      Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that "One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy."

      It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government's policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus - and one that's not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely.

      As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: "Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight. These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that."

      The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.

      One current illustration of their concern is the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth.

      The ALEC Act mandates "balanced teaching" of climate science in K-12 classrooms. "Balanced teaching" is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to "balance" mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the "balanced teaching" advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states.

      Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking - a fine idea, no doubt, but it's easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits.

      Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change.

      One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world's major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

      They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues.

      The other side consists of skeptics, including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown - which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse.

      Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC's regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately.

      The propaganda campaign has apparently had some effect on U.S. public opinion, which is more skeptical than the global norm. But the effect is not significant enough to satisfy the masters. That is presumably why sectors of the corporate world are launching their attack on the educational system, in an effort to counter the public's dangerous tendency to pay attention to the conclusions of scientific research.

      At the Republican National Committee's Winter Meeting a few weeks ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned the leadership that "We must stop being the stupid party. We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters."

      Within the RECD system it is of extreme importance that we become the stupid nation, not misled by science and rationality, in the interests of the short-term gains of the masters of the economy and political system, and damn the consequences.

      These commitments are deeply rooted in the fundamentalist market doctrines that are preached within RECD, though observed in a highly selective manner, so as to sustain a powerful state that serves wealth and power.

      The official doctrines suffer from a number of familiar "market inefficiencies," among them the failure to take into account the effects on others in market transactions. The consequences of these "externalities" can be substantial. The current financial crisis is an illustration. It is partly traceable to the major banks and investment firms' ignoring "systemic risk" - the possibility that the whole system would collapse - when they undertook risky transactions.

      Environmental catastrophe is far more serious: The externality that is being ignored is the fate of the species. And there is nowhere to run, cap in hand, for a bailout.

      In future, historians (if there are any) will look back on this curious spectacle taking shape in the early 21st century. For the first time in human history, humans are facing the significant prospect of severe calamity as a result of their actions - actions that are battering our prospects of decent survival.

      Those historians will observe that the richest and most powerful country in history, which enjoys incomparable advantages, is leading the effort to intensify the likely disaster. Leading the effort to preserve conditions in which our immediate descendants might have a decent life are the so-called "primitive" societies: First Nations, tribal, indigenous, aboriginal.

      The countries with large and influential indigenous populations are well in the lead in seeking to preserve the planet. The countries that have driven indigenous populations to extinction or extreme marginalization are racing toward destruction.

      Thus Ecuador, with its large indigenous population, is seeking aid from the rich countries to allow it to keep its substantial oil reserves underground, where they should be.

      Meanwhile the U.S. and Canada are seeking to burn fossil fuels, including the extremely dangerous Canadian tar sands, and to do so as quickly and fully as possible, while they hail the wonders of a century of (largely meaningless) energy independence without a side glance at what the world might look like after this extravagant commitment to self-destruction.

      This observation generalizes: Throughout the world, indigenous societies are struggling to protect what they sometimes call "the rights of nature," while the civilized and sophisticated scoff at this silliness.

      This is all exactly the opposite of what rationality would predict - unless it is the skewed form of reason that passes through the filter of RECD.

      ---

      Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy.

      ----------

      Lots of comments at the URL.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      5)
      Pope Francis

      http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html

      http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pope-promises-bring-look-church-041931264.html

      http://news.yahoo.com/catholics-overjoyed-1st-latin-american-pope-201844000.html

      http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/03/pope-francis-jorge-bergoglio-facts-bio/


      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      6)
      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-worst-places-retire-144342738.html
      The 10 Worst Places to Retire
      By Emily Brandon | U.S.News & World Report LP - Wednesday 13 March 2013

      Retirement is especially difficult if you live in a place with expensive real estate, high taxes, and steep healthcare costs. Retiring in a city with an inordinately high cost of living means you will have to save more money and invest more successfully just to make ends meet. Here are 10 U.S. cities where it's extremely difficult to retire well:

      Here are 10 U.S. cities (listed in alphabetical order) where it's extremely difficult to retire well:

      --- click on URL ---

      ***

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.